Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schoenhals v. Pahlergreen2 sentences1960“It is the duty of an appellant to distinctly point out the alleged errors of a trial court and to show that he was prejudiced by the rulings alleged to be erroneous, and to make specific reference to pages in the transcript on appeal which disclose the bases for the contentions of error in a trial court’s rulings.” Jacobs v. Stone, Mo., 299 S.W.2d 438 , loc. cit. 440; Schoenhals v. Pahler, Mo., 272 S.W.2d 228 ; Mo.Civil Rule 83.05, V.A.M.R. 1957This cannot be completely and surely done unless the causes appealed and submitted to the appellate court are properly briefed.” Fisher v. Lavelock, Mo.App., 290 S.W.2d 655, 658 ; Schoenhals v. Pahler, Mo.Sup., 272 S.W.2d 228, 230 (6). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Martinezgreen1 sentence2015Movant was not prejudiced-by appellate counsel’s failure to raise these additional sufficiency points on appeal, as despite counsel not raising those points, the Southern District still found, “... the statements, as well as the testimony of the [Victim], provide sufficient evidence from which reasonable persons could have found [Movant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of three counts of domestic assault and one count of aimed criminal action.” State v. Martinez, 407 S.W.3d 669,673 (Mo.App.S.D.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987). 1989Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Staples v. O'REILLYgreen1 sentence1983The parties all *671 claim and defend under a written contract, and the contentions are adjudicable under the usual principles of contract law: offer, acceptance, consideration, and performance, Staples v. O’Reilly, 288 S.W.2d 670, 673 [l-3] (Mo.App.1956). | 1 | 1 |
Berger v. Husergreen1 sentence1983Berger v. Huser, 498 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Mo.1973); Burks v. Beebe, 578 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Mo.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
Burks v. Beebegreen1 sentence1983Berger v. Huser, 498 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Mo.1973); Burks v. Beebe, 578 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Mo.App.1979). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Laygreen1 sentence1980State v. Lay, 427 S.W.2d 394, 403-404 [13] (Mo.1968). | 1 | 1 |
Dyer v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co.green1 sentence1978Rule 78.07; Dyer v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 378 S.W.2d 570, 579 (Mo.1964); Bremer v. Mohr, supra. Instruction No. 5 followed MAI 5.03, but appellant asserts that as worded it was prejudicially erroneous and required a modification because, as he states, it provided that “In assessing damages you may take into consideration any aggravating circumstances attendant upon the fatal injury,” and that this permitted the jury to consider aggravating circumstances totally unrelated to any negligence of appellant. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morrisgreen1 sentence1972See State v. Morris, Mo., 460 S.W.2d 624, 629 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daniels v. Board of Curators
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McClelland v. Ozenberger
green
2 sentences1992This court reviewed the contentions of error and rendered opinion in McClelland v. Ozenberger, 805 S.W.2d 264 (Mo.App.1991). 1 The court could not determine from the record “how much Dr. Campbell’s position changed, if at all.” Id. at 267 . 1992This court reviewed the contentions of error and rendered opinion in McClelland v. Ozenberger, 805 S.W.2d 264 (Mo.App.1991). 1 The court could not determine from the record “how much Dr. Campbell’s position changed, if at all.” Id. at 267 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Murphy v. Carron
green
1 sentence1979As this was a court tried case, our review is governed by the framework set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. Banc 1976). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Bremer v. Mohr
green
1 sentence1978Rule 78.07; Dyer v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 378 S.W.2d 570, 579 (Mo.1964); Bremer v. Mohr, supra. Instruction No. 5 followed MAI 5.03, but appellant asserts that as worded it was prejudicially erroneous and required a modification because, as he states, it provided that “In assessing damages you may take into consideration any aggravating circumstances attendant upon the fatal injury,” and that this permitted the jury to consider aggravating circumstances totally unrelated to any negligence of appellant. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Kring
green
1 sentence1973The first contention of error is based upon the rule in Missouri, which has been well established since State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591 (1877), that there must be some reason, based on the conduct of the prison *321 er, to permit the court to allow a prisoner to be brought before a jury with his hands chained. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Martin v. Turner
green
1 sentence1961Mann and Bradford challenge plaintiff’s instruction 5 defining the highest degree of care, the substance of which is identical to the substance of the instruction set out in Martin v. Turner, Mo.Sup., 306 S.W.2d 473 , at page 478, and there held to be prejudicially erroneous because “The definition set forth in the instruction falls far short of the requirements of the statute.” See also Shepard v. Harris, Mo. Sup., 329 S.W.2d 1, 9 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Shepard v. Harris
green
1 sentence1961Mann and Bradford challenge plaintiff’s instruction 5 defining the highest degree of care, the substance of which is identical to the substance of the instruction set out in Martin v. Turner, Mo.Sup., 306 S.W.2d 473 , at page 478, and there held to be prejudicially erroneous because “The definition set forth in the instruction falls far short of the requirements of the statute.” See also Shepard v. Harris, Mo. Sup., 329 S.W.2d 1, 9 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
State v. Swiney
green
1 sentence1961State v. Swiney, Mo.Sup., 296 S.W.2d 112 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Jacobs v. Stone
green
1 sentence1960“It is the duty of an appellant to distinctly point out the alleged errors of a trial court and to show that he was prejudiced by the rulings alleged to be erroneous, and to make specific reference to pages in the transcript on appeal which disclose the bases for the contentions of error in a trial court’s rulings.” Jacobs v. Stone, Mo., 299 S.W.2d 438 , loc. cit. 440; Schoenhals v. Pahler, Mo., 272 S.W.2d 228 ; Mo.Civil Rule 83.05, V.A.M.R. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Caley v. K.C., Mo. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co.
green
2 sentences1958We note, however, this paragraph of Instruction P-2: “You are further instructed that when the operator of a common carrier stops a bus and opens the door thereof that said common carrier is assuring the passengers thereon that they can alight from said bus in safety.” While statements of that general import have appeared in opinions (generally in connection with the defense of contributory negligence) of the courts of this state (see Caley v. Kansas City, Missouri & Kansas City Public Service Co., 226 Mo.App. 934 , 48 S.W.2d 25 ; Williamson v. St. 1958We note, however, this paragraph of Instruction P-2: “You are further instructed that when the operator of a common carrier stops a bus and opens the door thereof that said common carrier is assuring the passengers thereon that they can alight from said bus in safety.” While statements of that general import have appeared in opinions (generally in connection with the defense of contributory negligence) of the courts of this state (see Caley v. Kansas City, Missouri & Kansas City Public Service Co., 226 Mo.App. 934 , 48 S.W.2d 25 ; Williamson v. St. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Fisher v. Lavelock
neutral
1 sentence1957This cannot be completely and surely done unless the causes appealed and submitted to the appellate court are properly briefed.” Fisher v. Lavelock, Mo.App., 290 S.W.2d 655, 658 ; Schoenhals v. Pahler, Mo.Sup., 272 S.W.2d 228, 230 (6). | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.